Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Could the RIAA Just Disappear?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the don't-hold-your-breath dept.

BlueMerle writes "Ars Technica is running a story about how EMI is disappointed with RIAA and ultimately they (RIAA) may disappear. 'Is the RIAA as we know it about to disappear? As rumors continue to swirl that EMI will pull its funding from music trade groups like the RIAA and IFPI, an IFPI spokesman tells Ars that the group is in the middle of a major internal review of its operations.'" I wouldn't bet the farm just yet.

21 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. No! Don't go RIAA! by pwnies · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your antics make me laugh! Who else could pull off an attempt to sue someone for downloading files who doesn't have a computer?!

  2. RIAA ? by Nossie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The way things are going in the UK we wont need the equivalent of the RIAA to do the music industries dirty work... we'll have the government.

    So is this really that big a story? or are they just reallocating their resources?

  3. Answer: Yes by imstanny · · Score: 5, Insightful
    With Sony BMG deal, Amazon will offer unlocked MP3s from all major labels.


    RIAA days are numbered.

  4. RIAA says... by idontgno · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  5. Yes. Here's Proof: by imstanny · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i84e2bdeac2bc80912b76d9dd4d565fb6

    With Sony BMG deal, Amazon will offer unlocked MP3s from all major labels. RIAA days are numbered...

  6. Re:is it possible? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

    I hate to point this out, but the lawsuits themselves have generally had the names of the labels on them, not the RIAA. The RIAA is the average Slashdotter's shorthand for "the music industry" (well, kind of shorthand, seriously many of them can't tell the difference.)

    The article is about the trade association. The lawsuits are from the industry. The RIAA (the trade association) has had a hand in organizing the lawsuits but ultimately the lawsuits themselves have been pushed by the publishers themselves. The RIAA doesn't even have standing.

    So if anyone's reading this as "The RIAA is being punished for all the lawsuits!! No more lawsuits!!!", then, well, they're wrong. The RIAA's primary purpose is lobbying, and I guess the lobbying it does just isn't worth the money being spent on them.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  7. Re:is it possible? by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did anyone here - including the submitter - bother reading beyond the first paragraph of the article?

    This is not about the RIAA disappearing as in "going away". This is about the RIAA and IFPI merging operations. This would probably actually make things worse, because the combined agency would be larger, would have jurisdiction over more than just the United States, and would continue doing its current work.

    It's about finding ways of consolidating operations. And like a company that does this successfully, the resulting agency could actually end up stronger than the RIAA as it currently exists.

  8. Not betting farm but will put up the cows by prelelat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wouldn't bet the farm that the RIAA will disappear they are too important to the music industry, as they should be. I think that the RIAA has gotten side tracked on the real issues of music piracy and needs to stop attacking the consumers. It is the large pirates the ones that are actually making fake discs and selling them for a profit that need to be stopped, as they should. Turning off large sites that share music illegally should also be targeted. Music shouldn't be free or you wouldn't have an industry, but on that same note you don't alienate your consumers by making them feel like criminals(even if they just rip their CD to their MP3 player).

    I think what is really important is that their is an internal review going on, maybe a large shakeup will ensue and we can hope to get everything back to the way it should be. Protecting users from fake copies of albums, and protecting musicians from mass pirating. Your always going to have an underground community, you're just going to have to make sure your product is superior and stop the major counterfeiters.

    1. Re:Not betting farm but will put up the cows by ghyd · · Score: 3, Informative

      This Economist article http://economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10498664 paints an even bleaker future for the recording industry. So the last part of your post seems the most probable.

    2. Re:Not betting farm but will put up the cows by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Music shouldn't be free or you wouldn't have an industry...

      Music doesn't need an industry to survive, or even thrive. Distribution is no longer an issue, except to those who wish to control it. Production will always be profitable, if enough people like what you produce.

      --
      What?
  9. Sorry, I RTFA by liak12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If that happens, the "RIAA" might disappear even as its work continues. Same shit. Different name.
  10. What's the replacement? by compumike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So EMI will no longer farm out its enforcement duties to the RIAA. That's the entire point of the article. There's nothing to imply that they won't continue to protect their intellectual property. Just don't get all excited, now.

    There's a few things that still have to change:
    1) Copyright should be reduced in duration.
    2) The penalties must be adjusted to be reasonable.
    3) People must come to respect the rights of property holders, not violate them blindly. Copyright has lots of negative impliciations when well beyond the term of commercial viability, but I believe that copyright can be adjusted to accomodate both that and the property rights of the creator.
    4) Slashdot-crowd must abandon the notion that "not-for-profit" redistribution of someone else's work should be permitted without permission of the rights holder.

    --
    Our microcontroller kit. Your code. Instructional guide and free videos.

    1. Re:What's the replacement? by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Insightful comment, but a lot of what you propose will have no effect:

      1) Copyright should be reduced in duration.

      Copyright in the digital age is dead and quite useless. As laborers realize that their real income comes from billing for labor to-be-done, rather than billing for labor already-done, copyright will quickly dissolve to being useless. Artists are laborers, and those who realize that their future incomes will be derived from that which can't be easily duplicated by others will be the ones who profit and stay in business. Performing live is something that others can't easily mimic. Supply and demand, friends. There's a near limitless supply of digital content, so the price falls to near zero. There's a VERY finite supply of the time a specific artist can perform, so their income will come from selling that time to fans (i.e., live concerts or performances). Yes, this creates a real dilemma for writers, but I believe that MOST readers will prefer the artist's accepted printed book rather than the knock-off.

      2) The penalties must be adjusted to be reasonable.

      The penalties for being caught violating copyright are the least important factor in the situation. The time, and money, spent fighting a legal battle against an organization with a scale of income many MANY times higher than the defendant are the real costs. If you are found guilty of a civil violation, you declare bankruptcy and the judgment goes away. You don't get back the years, and tens of thousands of dollars, that you lost fighting to save your name. Reducing penalties will likely not fix this problem.

      3) People must come to respect the rights of property holders, not violate them blindly.

      OK, I won't steal the physical CD you have. The minute that I use my labor to duplicate something else, that product is mine. If I see you made a neat toilet, and I spend my hours buying porcelain, laying it into a form, and making my own toilet, you should have little control over how I move my arms, and use my mind, to duplicate the product that I want. Copyright, and other intellectual property restrictions, do little to promote new content or creations. The biggest wall for content creators is distribution, not creation. Millions, even billions of people create content, but only a few are able to distribute it.

      I respect the rights of PHYSICAL property holders, but I see no reason why they should control how I think or use my body and tools.

      4) Slashdot-crowd must abandon the notion that "not-for-profit" redistribution of someone else's work should be permitted without permission of the rights holder.

      Actually, the "not-for-profit" redistribution and re-creation of another person's original thoughts is a positive for the original creator, as it is a free form of marketing and advertising for them. Artists who tour regularly should LOVE people duplicating their digital works to friends and family and co-workers. Studio time is akin to the time (and money) one spends going to college or getting another education. It is what you DO with that education (i.e. studio time) as a long term labor that dictates how you get paid for your education.

      Just because a guy spent 4 years in college doesn't mean I should pay him $50,000 a year. Just because a band spent 4 years working on an album doesn't mean that their recorded work is worth a single penny to me. The laws of supply and demand, while restricted by ridiculous IP laws, will still win out in the long run.

      The RIAA is worthless, and many bands that I work with and am friends with realize that already. The only bands who care are the ones who sold their souls to their management companies in exchange for access to the monopolized distribution sectors (radio, TV, large distro magazines) which are already going the way of the do-do. Radio, TV and large distro mags will soon be worthless in the next digital era.

    2. Re:What's the replacement? by Damon+Tog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Supply and demand, friends. There's a near limitless supply of digital content, so the price falls to near zero." This does not mean that music should be free, it means that today's "a la carte" method of selling music is obsolete.

      A rough comparision would be to the cable industry. When you subscribe to cable, you are not forced to pay for each television show that you watch, you simply pay a flat rate and watch as much as you want. This is how recorded music must now be "sold."

      Musicians and labels should license their recordings to cell phone companies and ISPs for a flat rate and allow people to download as much as they want. In fact, this is already happening with Nokia's "Comes with Music" program.
  11. Re:is it possible? by ePhil_One · · Score: 5, Funny
    Did anyone here - including the submitter - bother reading beyond the first paragraph of the article?

    You must be new here...

    It had to be said, I'm so sorry...

    --
    You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
  12. Re:is it possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, having read the entire article and the linked articles I respectfully disagree that this is about the RIAA and IFPI merging. The merger is really beside the point and doesn't seem to be EMI's idea or goal.

    The RIAA is effectively an (effective) oligopoly and in that sense it is disappearing. EMI, having new owners, being the first of these labels to sell their tracks without DRM, and now questioning the value of the RIAA and IFPI clearly seems to realize that this oligopoly as it stands is no longer of benefit to them.

    That's not to say that a restructured RIAA/IFPI won't become an effective oligopoly as well or that this is what the submitter was addressing, but this very well could mean the RIAA is 'going away' and it is a clear indication that the RIAA in its current (i.e. anti-consumer) form is going away.

  13. Record labels could disappear, too by Dmala · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really think the record labels should go away along with the RIAA. They were a necessary evil when recording, distribution, marketing had huge upfront costs. Technological advancements have made professional recording orders of magnitude cheaper, and the Internet has done the same for distribution and marketing.

    Except for the very top tier, artists make very little from record sales. Why bother? Just give the music away for free and make money the way artists have for a long time: from live performances and merchandising. Consumers will be happy, artists will do as well as or better than they ever have, and all of this foolishness will go away. A bunch of greedy record execs will be looking for work, but will anyone care?

  14. Too fricking much making my brain hurt! by earlymon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, let me try to add this up. As I recall, internet radio was threatened by the bully-arm of the RIAA, SoundExchange, forcing royalty payments even for non-RIAA affiliated artists (or however the legally correct way to express that, if there is one). Remember this one, gang? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/29/0335224

    So, how does this add up? Does EMI pulling away from RIAA defang SoundExchange thereby seriously reducing the threat to internet radio? Or in the ironic comedy of the new century, does the RIAA, with sounds of a death rattle (added for drama, I'm shameless), turn around and unleash SoundExchange on EMI and bring suit under the same grounds as the attack on internet radio?

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  15. Re:is it possible? by edwdig · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't it the RIAA who actually represents the labels in court? That's the impression I've gotten.

    I believe the RIAA represents them collectively in major things, while on the little things its the individual members.

    Examples:

    RIAA vs XM / Sirius / MP3.com / Random MP3 Player maker

    Sony vs 90 Year Old Woman

    Warner vs Mountain Hermit

    EMI vs 10 year old girl

  16. Re:is it possible? by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Funny

    The RIAA's primary purpose is lobbying, and I guess the lobbying it does just isn't worth the money being spent on them.

    Huh, and here I was thinking the RIAA was supposed to be a standards body promulgating a common equalization curve for grooved recordings. Will wonders never cease.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  17. And yet... by Gewalt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And yet... EMI is still the only label offering content in iTunes+. That's the DRM free side of iTunes, btw.

    So it doesn't look like RIAA is going to go away, its just likely to lose 25% of its membership body. Well, even less than that, since EMI doesn't actually possess 25% market share.

    EMI has been going against its brethren for a while now. Let us hope they don't fail...

    --
    Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999